gold_setup_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool only shows key names, never values, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond what the empty schema and missing annotations provide. It also states the tool's output scope (license tier, key status, next step). However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool makes any external calls or is purely local, which would be useful but is not a major gap given the tool's simple nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The imperative 'run this FIRST' is front-loaded, and the rest of the sentence packs in the resource, the output, and a privacy guarantee (names only, never values). Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter setup check tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent when to run it, what it will learn, and a key behavioral constraint. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact output format or whether the tool performs any side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description carries enough weight to guide correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about what the tool checks and reports, which is valuable even though there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that by explaining the tool's purpose and output.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('run this FIRST') and resource ('SETUP CHECK for GSuite MCP Lane'), and clearly distinguishes its purpose from the sibling tools by framing it as a setup/readiness check rather than a search or append operation. It also names the exact resource being checked (license tier, API keys).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'run this FIRST', which is a clear usage directive. It also tells the agent what the tool will reveal (license tier, which API keys are set vs missing) and that it should be used before other operations, effectively routing the agent to this tool as a prerequisite step.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.